As loyal readers of this blog know, earlier this year the Federal Communications Commission took some significant steps to giving consumers more choices when it comes to high-speed wireless Internet access. The FCC set rules for the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction which said that consumers would have the right to download any software they want, and that consumers could use their handsets with whatever wireless network they want.

This was a big step for consumer choice and competition. "FCC airwave auction rules to give consumers more choice," said USA Today. "Consumers will be able to use any cellphone and software they want," wrote the Washington Post.

Apparently, one of the nation's major existing wireless carriers doesn't think consumers deserve more choices.

Earlier this week, Verizon Wireless filed a lawsuit against the FCC's rules that would require the eventual winner of the spectrum offer open devices and applications. They called the rules “arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.”

The nation's spectrum airwaves are not the birthright of any one company. They are a unique and valuable public resource that belong to all Americans. The FCC's auction rules are designed to allow U.S. consumers -- for the first time -- to use their handsets with any network they desire, and download and use the lawful software applications of their choice.

It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.

I am glad Google is willing to fight AT$T and the likes. I don't care even if Google does it for it's own benefit because I am also being benefited as a consumer. I curse myself for selling my soul and going with AT&T for IPhone. I am a AT&T slave for the next two years. I wish Google and Apple could come together and bid for the new spectrum. When that happens I would be more than happy to break my contract with AT&T

Veriaon is THE LAST company that I would choose to switch to in the near future when I choose a new mobile carrier. Why? They are the number 1 company known to cripple every device that they sell. The future is open, those against it deserve to disappear.

Can we start thinking about the true future of communications instead of profits?

Looks like somebody ticked Sir Charge off.No not google, its the people. How dare they dream of using new and innovative devices/applications on public spectrum. Its not 'public' spectrum ok! Stop saying that!What next? Better or cheaper service? No early termination fee? People dream too much these days!

Did I miss a point somewhere? If this spectrum is up for auction, then presumably the winner becomes the OWNER of that spectrum. If ownership doesn't confer exclusive rights to it, what the heck is the point of paying for it? Analagous to paying for a car at an auction, then being told by the seller that you have to leave the keys in the car at all times, just in case anyone else feels like going for a drive...

@ Brad. It's not the same. If someone buys a car at auction, you are free to buy another car from a different maker and drive it. Not so with wireless spectrum. Cars are not public utilities, or for the public benefit. The owner of the spectrum would have complete and total control over it. No one else could operate in that frequency space. So in that way it is anti-competitive. That's why the rule is there to guarantee access to the spectrum regardless of who actually owns it.

Before google express their support for public interest, I just wonder how much google cares about public's privacy. They collect all the data to figure what are consumers preferences, trend etc. I think Google is also monopolistic company. Why google does not allow to remove google cookies from machines ?? I think this is sheer hypocrisy in name of doing good for public. All corporates are alike, be it google or verizon.

@BradI am afraid owning a car (private property) is not analogous to owning a specturm (public use). Auction winning of a spectrum should only represent an "operating license" on that band, and the owner can conduct legal business in that band. For example, Verizon can install a broadband router/access-point operating in that frequency band and can charge the consumers for using that internet service, since they are allowed to do business in that band. Just like a guy locks his car, Verizon can have all sorts of restricted access to its router and router alone. But locking the entire specturm is analogous to that car guy (imagine a car-rental company) buying couple of important US-highways that connects major cities and does not allow any other cars to use it!Imagine a case where you have to take crazy alternate routes just because a guy is not allowing access to a highway. Even if the law permits it, it is degrading to the quality of human life. There is a objective difference between "conducting business in" and "owning" a public property, and Verizon, I think, got it wrong. I am not supporting Google, but in this case, they are right in my view.

While I'm appreciative of Google's efforts to take this pro-consumer stance, it seems that no one is addressing the key technical flaw to this arguement. As you know, in the US we have carriers running networks with a variety of incompatible technologies (GSM, CDMA, iDen, WiMax, etc.) and on various proprietary freqency bands (700, 800, 900, 1200, 1900 MHz, etc.). The technical impact of this to consumers is, for example, a GSM iPhone on AT&T's network, even if fully unlocked, will never work on Verizon's CDMA network, even if both Verizon and the FCC agree to allow any device on to any network. While there are "world phone" devices available that work across several technologies and frequencies, they represent a tiny percentage of US consumers handsets. How does google address this issue?

@RobYes you are correct that the communications platform is currently diverse, and that there are few integrated phones.But, allowing open access is the first step towards creating a scenario where a device works across a range of networks.The concept of cognitive radios, where all sorts of modulation and coding is done in the software, might take the center stage. A single hardware, and the users can just download a software for operating in a standard. This would give the phone manufacturers the flexibility to pair up with any service providers at any time, which in turn will enable constructive competition, which the fundamental point anyway.

I agree with Google and the FCC on this one! The goal of the new 700Mhz was to increase commuations within Public Service (Fire/Police, etc.) and to insure communications for public good. It is not all about the $$$$. Open use/Open Source rules.

noah... Google is clearly a more consumer friendly company than Verizon but the stock price of +$550 versus +$40 is meaningless when Google has only 312 million shares outstanding while Verizon has 2.9 billion shares outstanding

I'm curious to learn about Google's business case re. ROI on $4.6B using an open platform... Is it based on advertisement? If so, then Quality of Service becomes secondary (as it is nowadays with the Internet and VoIP). Then you will miss the "It's the network"...

Oh by the way "noah", the price of the stock doesn't mean anything if you don't have the starting price and number of outstanding shares (Finance 101).

I like this blog is fantastic, is really good written. Congratulation. Do you want to see something more? Read it...: Costa Rica is a country with a extremely sense of freedom. The landscapes are for much the most green in whole center america.The chances of investement are way to high, the average of Americans, European and people of the entire planet who is buying here is up in the sky !!!Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: condos, costa rica real estate, costa rica property. Visit us for more info at: http://www.jaco-bay.com/

Well, if you want an "freedom"-open-company, why don't you switch to cricket? or metroPC or any of these prepaid companies where you can use any phone you want? and even "unlimited" (dropped calls) minutes. (without any warranty unlike Verizon's 1 year In-store replacement policy).

It turns out that just the fact of setting a phone number cost 200 dollars, just for the setup. Then Verizon discounts 300 dollar phones to 0 or cheap. They give you unlimited nights and weekends and mobile to mobile, and no roaming or long distance charges, the best coverage, reception, 24-hour customer service, the best trained folks at the stores, and you still complain?.

In Mexico a basic 2 year contract, for 110 anytime minutes (no text or data included), cost 40 dollars a month, and you don't get mobile to mobile, or free long distance. or even nights and weekends. A basic Motorola RAZR costs at least 220 dollars even with a contract. Yes its very lame, but my point is: do you really think americans pay too much for wireless??. think again. Verizon Wireless really care about its customers... but what's wrong to want to get money out of it? Don't they deserve it for all you're getting?

I always believe the customer's wishes are always the best way. If you want to keep your business you need to keep the customer happy. Like coupon sites, I use them all the time and I am happy, my favorite is http://www.keepcash.com